MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2184744218 · doi:10.4073/csr.2010.2

Self‐control interventions for children under age 10 for improving self‐control and delinquency and problem behaviors

2010· article· en· W2184744218 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésJuvenile delinquencyPsychological interventionSelf-controlContext (archaeology)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)Control (management)Developmental psychologyApplied psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The main objective of this Campbell systematic review is to assess the available research evidence on the effect of self‐control improvement programs on self‐control and delinquency and problem behaviors. In addition to investigating the overall effect of early selfcontrol improvement programs, this review will examine, to the extent possible, the context in which these programs may be most successful. This review includes 34 randomized controlled studies covering a total of 4,386 children, aged from to 10 years. Of these, 31 studies are from the USA, 2 are from Canada and 1 is from Israel. The review covers a time span of 33 years (1975–2008). The studies included in this systematic review indicate that self‐control improvement programs are an effective intervention for improving self‐control and reducing delinquency and problem behaviors, and that the effect of these programs appears to be rather robust across various weighting procedures, and across context, outcome source, and based on both published and unpublished data. Considering these results, future efforts should be made to examine the effectiveness of self‐control improvement programs over time and across different segments of the life‐course (e.g., midadolescence, young adulthood etc.), and conduct rigorous cost‐benefit analysis on programs such as these. Executive Summary/Abstract BACKGROUND Self‐control improvement programs are intended to serve many purposes, most notably improving self‐control. Yet, interventions such as these often aim to reduce delinquency and problem behaviors. However, there is currently no summary statement available regarding whether or not these programs are effective in improving self‐control and reducing delinquency and problem behaviors. OBJECTIVES The main objective of this review is to assess the available research evidence on the effect of self‐control improvement programs on self‐control and delinquency and problem behaviors. In addition to investigating the overall effect of early self‐control improvement programs, this review will examine, to the extent possible, the context in which these programs may be most successful. SEARCH STRATEGY Several strategies were used to perform an exhaustive search for literature fitting the eligibility criteria: (1) A keyword search was conducted across a number of online abstract databases; (2) The reference lists of previous reviews of early childhood prevention/intervention programs in general and self‐control improvement programs specifically were consulted; (3) Hand searches were carried out on leading journals in the field; (4) The publications of research and professional agencies were searched; and (5) Recognized scholars (experts) in various disciplines who were knowledgeable in the specific area of self‐control improvement programs were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies that investigated the effect of early self‐control improvement programs on improving self‐control, and/or reducing delinquency and problem behaviors were included. Studies were only included if they had a randomized controlled evaluation design that provided post‐test measures of self‐control and/or delinquency and problem behaviors among experimental and control subjects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Narrative findings are reported for the 34 studies included in this review. A meta‐analysis of all 34 of these studies was carried out. The means and standard deviations were predominantly used to measure the effect size. Results are reported for the unbiased effect sizes and the weighted effect sizes and, where possible, comparisons across outcome sources (parent‐reports, teacher‐reports, direct‐observer reports, self‐reports, and clinical reports). Bivariate and multivariate analyses (using Lipsey & Wilson's SPSS macros) are performed in an effort to determine potential moderators and predictors of the effect sizes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS The studies included in this systematic review indicate that self‐control improvement programs are an effective intervention for improving self‐control and reducing delinquency and problem behaviors, and that the effect of these programs appears to be rather robust across various weighting procedures, and across context, outcome source, and based on both published and unpublished data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We conclude that self‐control improvement programs should continue to be used to improve self‐control and reduce delinquency and behavior problems up to age 10, which is the age cutoff where Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that self‐control becomes relatively fixed and no longer malleable. Considering these results, future efforts should be made to examine the effectiveness of self‐control improvement programs over time and across different segments of the life‐course (e.g., mid‐adolescence, young adulthood etc.), and conduct rigorous cost‐benefit analysis on programs such as these.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,595
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,892

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,323
Écart entre enseignants0,290 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle